Well he also has a weaker Masters 1000 resume compared to other greats. His numbers there are just not very impressive compared to other legends. He's got 11. People with more than him include Djokovic, Becker, Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal and Lendl. And Fed and Nadal and Lendl almost have twice as much.

Click to expand...

You could even throw in Laver as well (having more Masters 1000's than Sampras). Laver won 14 Masters 1000 equivalents, AFTER THE AGE OF 30. For whatever reason Sampras didn't focus on Masters 1000's. It was only when I put together the Open Era rankings thread that I noticed this gap in his Resume.

You could even throw in Laver as well (having more Masters 1000's than Sampras). Laver won 14 Masters 1000 equivalents, AFTER THE AGE OF 30. For whatever reason Sampras didn't focus on Masters 1000's. It was only when I put together the Open Era rankings thread that I noticed this gap in his Resume.

1000 tournaments should not be in consideration when talking about GOAT, really. They're just warm-up tournaments for players to prepare for slams.

Click to expand...

They are not AS important as Slams -that is true...but that is why they only get 1/2 the points that a Slam produces. However, they are still important wins on a Resume. Why do the top players work so hard to win them then? How does Nadal feel about Monte Carlo? If a player does well in the Slams but another plays incredibly well in the Masters 1000's then the latter player can still score the number 1 ranking. The players know that vital ranking points are on the line for these tournaments. Hence, the players wins at these tournament reflect concerted efforts in dominance. If Pete Sampras had won more Masters 1000's maybe there would be less gaps in his number 1 ranking periods during 1993 to 2000.

All depends on your perspective of importance for them. Sampras was still able to manage more Year #1's then anyone ever by peaking for the most important tournaments most of the time. He was a "slam guy".

I didn't like that from Sampras truth be told. He took the Masters events more seriously earlier in his career but he did what he had to do to be the best. I wish he would have took some of the lesser tournaments a little more seriously though.

All depends on your perspective of importance for them. Sampras was still able to manage more Year #1's then anyone ever by peaking for the most important tournaments most of the time. He was a "slam guy".

I didn't like that from Sampras truth be told. He took the Masters events more seriously earlier in his career but he did what he had to do to be the best. I wish he would have took some of the lesser tournaments a little more seriously though.

Click to expand...

But Sampras should be given credit for not making the effort with Masters 1000's and players who did put the effort in like Lendl - their effort shouldn't be discounted. I have weighted the Masters 1000's appropriately in the rankings I produced.

But Sampras should be given credit for not making the effort with Masters 1000's and players who did put the effort in like Lendl - their effort shouldn't be discounted. I have weighted the Masters 1000's appropriately in the rankings I produced.

Click to expand...

Lendl is easily an all time great for sure.. If he had more success in slam finals, he would be a GOAT candidate

Laver didn't even play a HC slam (3 slams played on grass in his day) which Sampras would have been licking his lips if he got to have in the 90s. And laver failed to win a big tournament or two in his career.
Borg didn't win a single USO or AO title
Fed's been owned by his main rival his entire career on the big stage (How can you be a GOAT if you can't even handle your rival at the slams?)
Rosewall-No wimbledon title

etc..

Most if not all GOAT candidates has some strikes against their name. Sampras is obviously a GOAT candidate. tied for most wimbledon titles, most year end #1s, 5 USO titles and most finals appearances, 286 Weeks as #1, 2 AO titles, h2h advantage over his main rival on the big stage, 5 Year end titles, The 2nd or 3rd best of his era didn't even come CLOSE to his accomplishments,(Whereas Rosewall and Pancho are close to Laver, Nadal is close to Federer) Thats GOAT material

Click to expand...

You do realize that there is a greater gap in the weeks at number one between Fed and Nadal, in addition to a much bigger gap in titles won and the same gap in slams won (6)..?

head to head doesnt matter, its the total titles won that eventually matter and rafa is 5 years younger to federer lets not forget it. Also if federer were to play 5 more years and racks up some slams, its all that matters not h2hs.

Sampras has a strong case for being the undisputed GOAT of Tier II greats. Too bad Federer immediately followed Sampras and eclipsed all but one major record of his, in addition to setting new milestones of his own (not to mention taking him down at the greatest stage in tennis when Pete was a 4-time defending champion); if Federer and Sampras played, say a decade apart, then one could entertain the classic Pete-worshippers "but eras cannot be compared.." line of defense, and make a case for Pete being ranked among Tier I candidates; as things stand, there can be no ambiguity about Federer > Sampras, which rules out Pete from Tier I (and it can only get worse from here..). Sorry Pete!

Sampras is the greatest of the 90s. Federer is the greatest of the 2000s. Laver is the greatest of the 60s. We should leave it as just that. Discussing further more who is greater in different playing conditions and equipments is just plain silly.

It was tougher to be an all-surface player back then. You HAD to be able to serve and volley to win Wimbledon and you HAD to be a baseliner with heavy shots to win the FO. This is why Agassi was so exceptional, he did what the guys today did but without the poly strings. Now with these new strings everybody just stays back and pummels the ball. Not that I don't like it, but it's different.

Gee don't you just love the hypocriscy of some Fed fans when it comes to Sampras and Nadal. They chop and change their argument when it suits them.

They are very quick to dismiss Fed's poor H2H record against Nadal, but invariably bring up Fed's one and only match against old man Sampras to prove he is better than Sampras when Sampras is brought into the fray.

Beating the field we are told, that's the only thing that counts we are told. Okay Fed tards, have it your way. Whilst Sampras' and Fed's careers overlapped, Sampras beat the field at least once, the 2002 USO. Sampras retired as the most recent slam champion. He won his last 7 slam matches. What did Federer do in Sampras' last slam before he retired? Bananas, that's what. A straight sets loss to Mimyi in the 4th round. Very underwhelming. Now let's see who Sampras had to beat:

Portas in 3
Pless in 3
Rusedski in 5
Haas in 4
Roddick in 3
Schalken in 3
Agassi in 4

Very very impressive field to get through, and he only dropped 4 sets along the way.

It was only after Sampras retired that Federer started to dominate. Based on Sampras's most recent slam form, and with renewed enthusiasm and confidence, who is to say that Sampras would not have won the AO , W and the USO in 2003?

As for total slam count, it has been stated time and time again, yes it is important, but due to many factors, it cannot be the only measure of GOATness. Homeginisation of courts, where baseliners are now winning Wimbledon more than ever before, the extinction of the serve and volley game, again, due to the homeginisation of courts, the fact that players from the past did not go out of their way to play, let alone win, every slam on offer, means that slam count can never be the only measurement of GOAT determination. By trying to impose a one size fits all methodology, ie, by stating that slam count should be 'it' across all of time, you are comparing apples to oranges.

So if you want to chop and change the H2H and beat the field arguments for when it suits yourselves, just remember, baby Fed did beat Sampras in H2H whilst their careers overlapped, but Sampras won the beat the field count whilst their careers overlapped. So which argument would you like to use? By your reasoning, Sampras was the better of the two when their careers overlapped. Sampras retired as the most recent slam champion, therefore giving everyone else a chance to win slams once he retired. What Fed did after Sampras retired is irrelevant, Sampras got him when they were in competition for slams. The fact Fed's slam count has overtaken Sampras' is also irrelevant because of the reasons stated above, apples and oranges.

What I said seems ridiculous to you? Well welcome to non-******* world, we see this sort of chop and change stuff every day on here.

In answer to the OP, Sampras is very much one of the GOAT contenders, but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, you can't single one man out as GOAT. There's too many things to consider, which works against every player to ever play the game.

In answer to my question above about which argument to use, if you know anything about tennis and it's history, you'll say both. If you're a jonny come lately, keep ******* out the most slam count.

Sampras did not win the FO which is a mark against him. But at the end of the day, he won the most slams in his era, held the no. 1 position the longest in his era and he did not get outrighted owned by anyone in slams in his era. Aside from not winning the FO, he can't do much more than that. Therefore he is a GOAT contender and he stands alongside, not in front of or behind, but alongside, every great of the game.

Well he also has a weaker Masters 1000 resume compared to other greats. His numbers there are just not very impressive compared to other legends. He's got 11. People with more than him include Djokovic, Becker, Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal and Lendl. And Fed and Nadal and Lendl almost have twice as much.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Masters series tournaments mean next to nothing when we are discussing who is GOAT - it's all about slams/pro majors, YEC's, amount of time spent at No 1. Pete set out to break the slam record, he didn't care about breaking the Masters series record.

Yes, ****** doesn't have a real case for GOAT because it is too one-sided. 7/11 GS are RG. The only way he won so much is with his injury prone style of retrieving every ball and pushing them back. Dull hasn't won a title off clay in how long? 2 years?

Yes, ****** doesn't have a real case for GOAT because it is too one-sided. 7/11 GS are RG. The only way he won so much is with his injury prone style of retrieving every ball and pushing them back. Dull hasn't won a title off clay in how long? 2 years?

Click to expand...

Borg won 6/11 at RG (just one fewer than Nadal), and 11/11 at RG and W. Are you saying he is not a GOAT candidate?

Seriously? Masters series tournaments mean next to nothing when we are discussing who is GOAT - it's all about slams/pro majors, YEC's, amount of time spent at No 1. Pete set out to break the slam record, he didn't care about breaking the Masters series record.

Click to expand...

But masters 1000 are one aspect of a players career. Not the total picture but still an aspect. It shouldn't detract from Lendl's great effort in winning 22 masters 1000 equivalents, just because Sampras wasn't willing to put the effort into winning them and only has half the total of lendl. Why should Lendl be penalised because of Pete's philosophy?

Sampras was the greatest of his era. That alone is worthy enough to put him among one of the greatest of all time. Plus, he didn't get completely owned by anyone in slams, even at the French Open he did beat Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Agassi.

Sampras was the greatest of his era. That alone is worthy enough to put him among one of the greatest of all time. Plus, he didn't get completely owned by anyone in slams, even at the French Open he did beat Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Agassi.

Click to expand...

you really dont want to start trying to talk up sampras french open record...

its like trying to claim that a plate of dog sh1t is the best meal ever in the history of food.

But masters 1000 are one aspect of a players career. Not the total picture but still an aspect. It shouldn't detract from Lendl's great effort in winning 22 masters 1000 equivalents, just because Sampras wasn't willing to put the effort into winning them and only has half the total of lendl. Why should Lendl be penalised because of Pete's philosophy?

Click to expand...

They are a very small aspect when judging the GOAT.

Pete's six extra slams compared to Lendl is far more important than Lendl's 11 extra Masters series. Really, Masters series should only be used as a tiebreaker between candidates who are fairly equal, not as one of the prime factors for determining who is GOAT.

BTW: I did not say the H2H makes Nadal the GOAT. fed is obviously still greater than him.

I just said it is a serious dent in Feds GOAT case. However Fed is not the only GOAT candidate having such a dent (see sampras lack of FO win) so to me he is still the GOAT.

Click to expand...

It's not a serious dent. It would be serious if Nadal dominated Federer on hardcourts and grass. He didn't, he trails 8-6 on those surfaces. It's knock on Federer for sure but it isn't a serious dent in his case. Federer has done better against the field compared to Nadal. He's the superior player be cause of it. Nadal's matchup advantages and his domination of clay shouldn't detract much from Federer.

It's not a serious dent. It would be serious if Nadal dominated Federer on hardcourts and grass. He didn't, he trails 8-6 on those surfaces. It's knock on Federer for sure but it isn't a serious dent in his case. Federer has done better against the field compared to Nadal. He's the superior player be cause of it. Nadal's matchup advantages and his domination of clay shouldn't detract much from Federer.

Click to expand...

Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams. Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer. Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.

Nadal still leads 3-2 on grass and hard court slams. Even on Nadal's worst surfaces, he still dominated Federer. Fed's pathetic H2H vs Nadal is certainly a big hole in his career.

Click to expand...

For one of those losses Federer was 30 years old. Bit unfair to expect him to keep up with someone 5 years younger than him. I don't see why only the slam h2h should count anyway. Federer has beaten Nadal plenty of times on hardcourts. If Nadal went further in these tournaments when Federer was at his peak the slam H2H and H2H in general would look very different. Federer has done better against the field than Nadal has. His matchup disadvantages with Nadal aren't a major blot. Considering that...

One way of looking at this is that if Fed was as good (bad) as your hero on clay, skipped 2009 AO (like your hero did in 1999) and lost in 4th round of AO in 2012 he would have been a better player except that I find that way of thinking to be quite ridiculous.

Sampras is the greatest of the 90s. Federer is the greatest of the 2000s. Laver is the greatest of the 60s. We should leave it as just that. Discussing further more who is greater in different playing conditions and equipments is just plain silly.

Click to expand...

ROFL!! Of course you're heading to this route because Sampras is now 1 tier below Federer.

Anyway, The Tennis Channel team have come to a conclusion that Fed is #1. And Sampras and Laver have said Federer is the greatest.

"I have to give it to him," he said. "He's won all the majors[15] now, and he will win a few more. So in my book he is."
-Sampras

“Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing”
-Laver

No he's not. He won 14 GS in 54 slam appearances, Fed won 17 in 52 appearances.

*He never had a winning percentage of over 90 in a year.
*Never won 3 slams per year
*Never was a force on clay
*Only won 11 MS(Nole has already pass him)

Click to expand...

You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me?

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use with the top few of the GOAT candidates list.

In answer to the OP, Sampras is very much one of the GOAT contenders, but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, you can't single one man out as GOAT. There's too many things to consider, which works against every player to ever play the game.

Click to expand...

Slam count is not the be-all and end-all, but it's the most important criteria in goat debate. 17 to 14 slam is a huge difference. Even great players(hall of famers) wasn't able to win 3 slams in their career. Sampras doesn't have a career slam. he reached 18 slam finals but Fed reached 24. Sampras have less winning % at the slam, less matches won, etc...

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use at the top of the GOAT candidates list.

Click to expand...

Yes his 6 years #1 fabulous, but that's only one stat. Fed has the record weeks #1, and fans have said wks at #1 is more telling than year end #1. He also had 237 straight weeks. So if we specificially compare ranking stats only, Fed is still more impressive.

It depends how you define "a force". I don't think winning just 1 MS on clay in an entire career is a force, because you can include any player with 1 MS is a force on that surface.

Seriously? Masters series tournaments mean next to nothing when we are discussing who is GOAT - it's all about slams/pro majors, YEC's, amount of time spent at No 1. Pete set out to break the slam record, he didn't care about breaking the Masters series record.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have the weight of the slam but you're selling players like Lendl, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Nole real short. Focus on both slams and MS to be able to win consistently is a real challenge. Too bad Sampras takes the easy route.

You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me?

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use with the top few of the GOAT candidates list.

Yes his 6 years #1 fabulous, but that's only one stat. Fed has the record weeks #1, and fans have said wks at #1 is more telling than year end #1. He also had 237 straight weeks. So if we specificially compare ranking stats only, Fed is still more impressive.

It depends how you define "a force". I don't think winning just 1 MS on clay in an entire career is a force, because you can include any player with 1 MS is a force on that surface.
The last sentence I can accept.

Click to expand...

I have a question for you. You are throwing out some stats but what about the players that may have better stats than Federer like Bill Tilden for example. Below is the info on Tilden and Federer taken from a thread I started a few months ago. The information on Federer is should be correct since I edited it a few minutes ago.

There has been a thread in which Jimmy Connors' career is being compared to Roger Federer's. All fine and dandy. Many assumed Federer wins by a Slam Dunk and with all the acclaim Federer gets today I can understand why. And frankly Federer does have the accomplishments to be compared with anyone in tennis history. But still I would prefer cold facts then people writing Federer is superior to player A on hard courts, clay courts, blue clay, grass courts and indoor courts. I've seen comments in the other thread stating Federer was superior to Connors on most surfaces and yet by some incredible magic Mr. Connors has a slightly higher winning percentage for his career. So to me the comments don't work.

Federer may very well be superior to Connors but Connors' career accomplishments are fantastic and if you look carefully it doesn't seem to me at least that it's all that clear.

Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough.

I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read.

Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

Total tournaments won
Tilden-161-est.
Federer-76

Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
Federer-17
We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was.

Percentage of majors won
Tilden-14/42=.333
Federer-17/54=.315

Lifetime winning percentage
Tilden-.660-est
Federer-.816
Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

Grand Slams won
Tilden-0
Federer-0

Percentage of tournaments won
Tilden-.520-est.
Federer-.288

Winning percentage in best five years
Tilden-.980-est.
Federer-.907

Look at the information and discuss.

Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay.

Click to expand...

Edit-Corrected the information on Federer. It should be up to date as of December 3, 2012.

So all of you. Please discuss. Do you go by simple accomplishments and stats or do you decide otherwise? I believe Tilden would have done extremely well today. He was a gifted athlete and perhaps even more than that he was a great tennis analyst and studied the game, always trying to improve.

^ I have Tilden in my all-time top 10 (as I believe everyone should) but to have him as GOAT is to ignore the fact that competition was much less in his days. The number of countries/players who played tennis to a serious level was much lower than it is today. Hence it's no surprise that his percentages were even better than latter-day greats.

^ I have Tilden in my all-time top 10 (as I believe everyone should) but to have him as GOAT is to ignore the fact that competition was much less in his days. The number of countries/players who played tennis to a serious level was much lower than it is today. Hence it's no surprise that his percentages were even better than latter-day greats.

Click to expand...

But the man played to the 1950's. He was able to beat Don Budge (occasionally) when he was in his forties. He played the Muskateers, Bill Johnston, Dick Willams, Vines, Perry, Nusslein, Gonzalez, Riggs everyone and did very well. Most of Europe played, Japan, Australian and of course the United States. He was still almost unbeatable. I mean how much better could he be? If Federer played at that time he would have to win every match to top Tilden!